In these pages, we have one of the most extended examples of Socratic elenchus. Socrates begins by asking Polus to take a position on an issue: is it better to be caught and punished doing wrong than to escape punishment? Polus sez it is better to escape. He supports his argument with standard rhetorical artifices: historical example (his description of Archelaus who is happy despite his many wrongdoings, p. 102), vivid and emotional description (in his description of the tortured man, p. 104). Socrates sez these rhetorical devices are rhetorical refutations that do not advance truth. Then, carefully, Socrates leads Polus to agree with a series of more basic assertions that lead up to the contrary position: it is better to suffer than to do wrong. (1) Doing wrong is fouler and more painful than suffering wrong. (2) Suffering and giving a penalty are both good acts b/c they both suit justice. (3) The man who escapes suffering a penalty is analogous to the man who refuses a doctor’s ameliorative treatment b/c of the treatment’s discomfort. Socrates concludes that these three concessions lead to the conclusion: the man who escapes punishment must be more wretched than the man who suffers it. It is difficult to say that Socratic elenchus serves no useful argumentative purpose, since the discursive process has helped Socrates to attain consent from Polus (perhaps from you) about the definition in question: who is more wretched, the man who escapes punishment or the man who succumbs to it. But the larger question still hovers here: what is justice? Can elenchus answer that question? How? If not why not? Feel free to borrow from what you have read of the debate between Callicles and Socrates to answer this prompt, since this debate is about the nature of justice.